| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step. |
| Date: | 2020-03-13 16:58:25 |
| Message-ID: | 30450.1584118705@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It seems that for all the possibly interesting cases, what we want to wait on
> is an heavyweight lock, which is already what isolationtester detects. Maybe
> we could simply implement something like
> step "<name>" [ WAIT UNTIL BLOCKED ] { <SQL> }
> without any change to the blocking detection function?
Um, isn't that the existing built-in behavior?
I could actually imagine some uses for the reverse option, *don't* wait
for it to become blocked but just immediately continue with issuing
the next step.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-03-13 17:06:29 | Re: range_agg |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2020-03-13 16:54:51 | Re: Additional improvements to extended statistics |